47 F. 822 | N.D. Cal. | 1891
This is a libel in rem. against the bark Tammerlane, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, to recover compensation for an injury sustained by the libelant on board the bark while in the discharge of his duties as seaman, and for alleged neglect and maltreatment of the officers thereafter, and for medical expenses incurred by him after the
The first of these questions was carefully considered by Judge Brown in the case of The City of Alexandria, reported in 17 Fed. Rep. 390, and the conclusion there reached, after a review of the authorities, that, by the maritime law, ancient and modern, a seaman, in case of an accident received in the service of the ship, is entitled to medical care, nursing, and attendance, and to cure, so far as cure is possible, at the expense of the ship, and to wages to the end of the voyage, and no more; that this right of the seaman is without reference to any question of ordinary negligence of himself or his associates, and is neither increased nor diminished by the one or the other, — the only qualification arising from the willful and gross misconduct of himself or associate, in which case the expense may be charged against the wages of the wrong-doer. Accordingly, in that case, where, the cook, who was the libelant, went down the fore-hatch in the morning before light, by the direction of the steward, and was not sufficiently notified of the half-open hatch below, and, in consequence, foil through, and was injured, and was subsequently treated and cared for at the ship’s expense, and received his wages to the end of the voyage, and thereafter filed a libel to recover damages for permanent injuries, the libel was dismissed. The case for the libelant there was much stronger than here; for in the present case the accident to the libelant was caused in large part, if not entirely, by his own carelessness. It occurred on a whaling voyage, and, being ordered by the boat-header, one Wilbur, to go from the main deck into the hold for some purpose, the libelant, in doing so, swung himself'down through the main hatch into the between-decks, and stepped upon the edge of the forward half cover of the hatch of the between-decks, which thereupon turned, and caught him, inflicting the injury of which he complains. The cover was raised at the time, and rested against the stanchions extending from the main deck to the between-decks; but it was not fastened, as it usually was. How it happened to be left unfastened on this occasion does not appear. There were cleats upon the stanchion, to be used in going from the main deck to the between-decks, and a ladder was also sometimes used for the same purpose. The case further shows, however, that the men in going below not infrequently adopted the means used by the libelant in the present instance, which was doubtless more expeditious, but not so safe. The cleats upon the stanchion were for the very purpose, and afforded a safe and easy way,
■ It is insisted, however, that he is entitled to recover $25 for medical expenses incurred by him after the termination of the voyage, and his return to the port of discharge. The service for which this charge is made was an operation upon one of the libelant’s kidneys, rendered necessary, as is claimed, by the injury he received. The proof to sustain this claim is by no means satisfactory; but, assuming that the disease of the kidney was occasioned by the injury he received onboard the bark, it does not follow that the medical services rendered him are
The libel is dismissed, at libelant’s costs.